Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Prestidigitalis" data-source="post: 5256430" data-attributes="member: 74496">I like a lot of what I see there, but the higher level stances need to be a lot more powerful than the first two or there will be a real power drop off relative to traditional builds.I'm torn about how and whether the stance mechanic simplifies play.  A player could always just enter the Cleaving Assault stance and stay there forever, but how is that different from a player just using the Cleave power every turn?  Granted, the Battle Wrath stance is simpler still, but the only reason we don't have a Battle Wrath-like power is because WotC never gave us one -- it's certainly not a ridiculous concept.Being able to use a stance-empowered MBA on attacks like charges and OAs is definitely a plus -- no having to remember "Oops, I can't use Cleave, this is just an OA [and I don't have Heavy Blade Opportunity yet].  But then again, that means that on every charge and OA, you have to remember to take into account the stance's effects.  You can make an argument both ways about whether it is simpler or more complex in the end.Also worth noting is that we don't know what new feats they may make available to go with the new build.  I can imagine two that would make a pretty big difference -- a feat to make switching stances a free action and one to allow you to stack stances (2 or more at one time).This is really early days, like back when the big topic on ENWorld was whether humans got a boost to two ability scores or just one, based on the pre-gen characters.I guess overall I'm glad that they are experimenting like this, but I can see several ways this could introduce a whole lot of new confusion to what has become a relatively stable community understanding of 4e.  -- Hey -- maybe their goal is full employment for WotC Customer Service!</blockquote>

Verification